Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry 365 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Mr Ben
    Mr Ben

    Book of Ben, Ch 2, vs 110-120

    And so the grandsons of god, the Nephalim, decided thereupon to cleanse their house of the gift of leprosy, so kindly created by grandpa to test them in their doubt, by taking a large chicken, the largest they couldst find of the broiler variety Tyrannosaurus Rex, yea, to cleanse their house. But lo! No oven large enough in the land was to be found! And grandpa, with his fury in his nose, didst look down upon the poultry paltry sacrifice and didst say, “only 20,000 packets of Paxo? I accurse this vestigial sacrifice! Away with his teeth!”

    And so the very manhood of the T-Rex was absorbed back into his tooth buds and his machismo was undermined when he laid a very unmacho egg which gave rise to a pitiful progeny fit only for use in a Macchicken burger. And so grandpa laid low the pride of both the Nephalim and the great fire-breathing beast.

    And so it was that man was forced to eat the meat of slaves, for it was said, the slave must plucketh the chicken, and by thus ingesting, man acquired, by the scriptural process of acquired characteristics, the chicken and the goosy bumps. And grandpa didst say, “I am putting my goosy bumps upon man as a sign that he shall not forget the day when his Lord’s fury was in his nose at the Paxo-less offering.”


  • inrainbows


    It's a simple question I've asked you, but then key to your position is the avoidance of the same.

    In your cut and paste description what do you understand by 'observations'?

    If you understand observations to mean something like 'golly that okapi that landed in my lap is a funny colour and has a long neck', then you know perfectly well that you can hold on to your position as long as you like, as speciation does not happen like that in terms of interspecies transitions, interspecies differentiation (you want a new species to be grossly different, subtle changes are not enough) and typical time scales.

    The above understanding of observations where;

    • Ring species where interbreeding occurs at the ends of a ring is rare are not good enough as there is some gene flow.
    • New species of (e.g.) fertile plant that are not fertile with the originating species of plant/s are not good enough, as the differences are too subtle for your definition even though there is no gene flow.
    • Your refusal to accept the reasonable modern understanding of species (scientific species names are place markers of note, not the beginings of new chapters) or to 'join the dots' and see the implication of what we can observe over longer time scales.

    ... means you can maintain the pretence of having a reasonable position to your heart's content.

    However, such a position does not preclude macroevolution from being a fact; it is a 'pyrrhic victory', if you like. You make yourself right by defintion, but actually miss how wrong you might be. Slight of hand, not impressive, not that you should try to impress anyone but are you actually kidding yourself?

    If by observation one allows fossil evidence, extrapolation of events observable in human time-scales, genetic evidence, etc., then your refusal to see the slow gradual change between grossly different forms is not really tenable.

    So, am I right about you having a 'in front of my eyes' (or something close to it) defintion of observable?

    Now, back to the bits you are ignoring as you can't answer them to any level of satisfaction and keep your ID hypothesis credible.

    • ID requires the designer to pop up at various points since life began to introduce new species. Thus it is required to be explained IN the hypothesis. Go on then.
    • Atavisms such as dolphin limbs and human tails are not explicable as 'inbuilt design variation'. Humans have no conceivable use for tails; if they do, please let me in on your insight. Likewise, non-functional limbs are a useless design variation to cope with environmental stress for dolphins, and a decent designer could make 'inbuilt design variation' produce usable features within one generation.
    • Genetic evidence points to lines of descent due to the unique 'finger print' of an endoviral infection event being inexplicable by other means; you can't credibly say 'oh, each species caught the endovirus independently' as the genetic evidence of this would be different from that we find in (e.g.) chimps and humans.
    • Why do you limit the power of the designer? You seem to believe that a designer of the ilk you speculate is limited to producing a range of 'cars' that can modify themselves to suit 'market forces', but will always remain a Ford Taurus/Dodge Viper etc., and never become a bus, a tractor-trailer, etc. Why can the designer not have the design savvey to set up the very rules so the OUTPUT of the system is what it wanted based upon an initial single design event?
  • Burger Time
    Burger Time

    How about us evolutionist and creationist make a 2 million years if society does not advance then your right. If however we do evolve then evolutionist are right. In order to prove a theory you need the time to prove it. Creationist will not give the time for the theory to be proven.

  • BurnTheShips
    Speaking of dinosuars and dragons, I thought the readers would like to hear more of the insantity that Creationists pass as 'science', as if they have not heard enough of it from your good self.

    They pass insanctity as science.

    And a lot of gas.


  • real one
    real one

    HS says:

    That you admit to ignoring the facts in order to cleave to your believe says much more about you than you might hope

    what facts have I ignored? are you talking about the goosebumps thing

    do you have all the facts hs?

  • hillary_step

    real one,

    what facts have I ignored? are you talking about the goosebumps thing.

    The facts are these.

    1) I asked you why humans have goosebumps.

    2) You correctly answered that they have them for two reasons both, of which are seated firmly in our evolutionary past.

    a) To keep warm. b) As a protection against predators - the hair follicles arising at moments of emotional tension.

    3) Humans no longer have thick growth of hair that necessitates their keeping warm, though obviously they once did have.

    4) Humans are no longer in the predatorial situation where they need to expand their size to fool their predators, though obviously they once were.

    5) After having this explained to you, you then denied that you believed in evolution, despite your own evidence to the contrary.

    Join the dots.

    Blimey Real One, how the hell do you find the bathroom when you need one?


Share this